I cannot see the whole world using bitcoin when its going to create such wealth disparity.
There are roughly 13 million coins in circulation, with the maximum amount being 21 million. This means over 50% of all coins in being, are in control of a small minority consisting of maybe 0.01% of the worlds population.
Yes, there is a super-elite rich at the moment, but not at the scale we are talking about if bitcoin were to be adopted.
Is it not more sensible to think that yes, a cryptocurrency will exist, but not bitcoin?
This is known as the black & white fallacy: in reality, many cryptocurrencies will--and already do--co-exist, you have absolutely no reason to use just one of them alone. In fact, there is a natural disincentive to use bitcoin as it lends too much power to the "early elite" so to speak; people really hate for other people to be wealthy, apparently, so they'll likely use other crypto and treat bitcoin like we treat gold now: savings, just for the fact that it's the most used--thus most trusted--crypto to date. It's funny to think of bitcoin as a savings money now since it has just wild swings, but by the time this money is worth enough to actually be the issue you think it will be, its swings will have died down considerably.
I recall, but not the name, an existing or perhaps planned system of payment which would allow merchants to accept all (or rather, most) crypto easily without having to do any extra work, and then get the crypto they want out of it, similarly to how bitpay can turn bitcoin into fiat for merchants who don't want to handle bitcoin. This would make it dead simple to have all the crypto you want, without having to worry about being forced to use bitcoin in the fear that someone else will profit from your participation. Your fear that there can be a super-rich elite born from this money should be settled; you should, however, remain prudent about the fact that the rich can still use government to get super-rich, as they always have, even if a new currency is being used widespread.
A coin where you are automatically assigned a certain amount based on your wealth at the moment, in relation to others?
I have no idea what you mean here; instead of the market, would you rather your wealth be assigned by a central power?
I find it absurd that someone, i.e the Winklevosses could own 1% of the worlds monetary power. Noone, absolutely noone in their right mind, will allow someone to hold this amount insane amount of resources.
Then why do you fear people will continue to use bitcoin? Simple market knowledge shows you why this doesn't happen: there's a natural disincentive, as I outlined above. The only way it can happen is through force.
I understand, the concept and even bitcoin itself is revolutionary, it has woken us up to what could be, but the origination and adoption of bitcoin was messy and only open to people who (rightly so) had knowledge and guts. But just because someone has guys it doesn't mean they are deserving of something.
Right; they're deserving of something because they own said something. They own it because of their "guts". They are not entitled to their something because of their guts, they are entitled because it is their property.
99.99% of the worlds population controlling 50% of the worlds monetary value and therefore resources, when early adoptors, i.e the 0.01% own the other 50%. 1 person in the 'bitcoin elite' would have the same monetary power as 10,000 people. That's disgusting and human morality itself will not allow for this to happen.
Worried about a hypothetical that can't happen? You're lying somewhere in this quote.
Don't get me wrong cryptocurrency is the future, just not one causing a dictatorship to be born.
Dictatorships are not caused by money, they're caused by submission to wartime planners. As outlined above, there is a natural disincentive to stop using a currency if there's fears of helping a small elite become too wealthy.
And for the short term I see no reason to invest either....
So invest for the long-term.
Swiping cards is just about the simplest thing you can do, most transactions under $50 don't require a signature, and security codes and card expiry are incredibly small concerns.
Bitcoin's headaches are immense, slow txn processing, irreversible for the consumer, funds are lost if wallet is compromises...now follow me for a sec...
Your card can get stolen easily from your wallet, or by forgetting it somewhere: most transactions under $50 don't require a signature, and security codes and card expiry are incredibly small concerns...for the thief as well. With bitcoin, you can protect your wallet with a password, and prevent all transactions without this password. Oh god, the headache of remembering a password
I can see why you're in love with the idea of a card: considering you're the type to base your ethical theory on how equal or unequal people's wealth are, you never plan on owning a business in your life, so it's easy to miss how bitcoin evens the playing field between the two. Cards are a great expense to business at very little or no cost to the consumer; it would be weird for you to not prefer it that way, even if it's a power disparity (hey you're against those, right? Or is it just when you're on the wrong end?
)
Bitcoin transactions are instant, by the way; the confirmations just ensure that the transfer is legit. I assume you've never once spent bitcoin at an establishment or even an online retailer or you'd know that they take no more time than a debit card transaction, as far as the consumer is concerned. Furthermore, bitcoin transactions are reversible for the consumer: if the consumer gets dicked over on an order, the merchant can easily send the money back
out of his own will. The problem you have is that the merchant can't be forced at any given time within 30 days, which is a pretty awful way to do business (a lot of money is lost through these types of frauds.) And yes, you can have your bitcoin stolen as with any medium; it's just how it goes with property. It is, however, a disparity between the two to mention it for one, but not the other. For bitcoin, this is mitigated simply by not keeping too much BTC on your "spending" wallet; everyone is familiar with the concept of checking and savings, things in savings can't be spent easily; likewise, bitcoin has cold wallets and wallets, the former of which is hard to spend. I'm certain this will be streamlined as time goes on (coinbase now has something called a "vault" where money goes in, but doesn't easily come out.)
Merchants can't replace credit with bitcoin. Simply can't. Credit is money you don't have and bitcoin is money you do have. A good credit card offers rewards, 100% fraud protection, ubiquitous acceptance, FICO score benefits, and an entity between you and your money. Tons of consumer value.
It's probably better that we not use credit; that has led to many wealth disparities, which you seem to be against.
Now debit - debit fees were sliced by the Durbin amendment, so suddenly they aren't all that much more than the 1% exchange price of bitcoin.
While debit and bitcoin are comparable in that they are money you have, there is still no compelling reason for your average consumer to pay a fee to obtain bitcoin just to make an everyday purchase.
There is if your average consumer is being paid in crypto, Mr. "What if bitcoin takes over the world?!" You can't look that far into the future, then ignore it completely; this is a very poor argument on your behalf. Yes, it's true that all crypto has little incentive to the average Joe, since the average Joe only really cares about the path of least resistance of which bitcoin is not it. However, there are many previously outlined benefits to using bitcoin--if lack of a central authority is not enough, then there's probably not a lot someone can do to convince you otherwise. The central authority has far more wealth than you do, btw; is this a "necessary wealth disparity"? Or do you believe you're special in that very few people care about wealth disparities?
Merchants can want to eliminate transaction fees all they want but until there is clear value for the most important point in the value chain, the consumer, mass adoption will not occur. Even worse, to fix bitcoin's shortcomings, you need to regulate it, guarantee it, set up escrow's, exchange btc for USD...all the things that will make it just like the mainstream banks bitcoin is seeking to circumvent.
Bitcoin doesn't seek to circumvent those things, it is not a conscious being. Satoshi's purpose for Bitcoin was to operate without a central authority, which has clear benefits that you haven't acknowledged or are simply unaware of. Most important of all, because bitcoin is not centrally regulated (though it is regulated by the protocol, mind you,) it cannot be inflated, therefore it cannot be used for the purposes of empire, thus wars must be paid for in the here and now, rather than by selling off the future, ergo the world is, by and large, a much more peaceful place to live as wars are too expensive to wage.
I'm not saying people should use a product they're uncomfortable with for the strict purpose of future benefit (because deferral of gratification would be a sign of intelligence ergo an unreasonable standard for most people), but I am saying it's a cause worthy enough to advocate. Many people can't be convinced logically of the usefulness of an item, they remain skeptical no matter what; many do it because other people are doing it and they don't want to be left out. That's fine, but in order for that to occur, you need people and businesses to use an "inferior" product so it can get enough infrastructure to function as a direct and improved replacement to the monetary system of today, including all the benefits of cards and such, and all of which are possible
without a central governing authority. Doesn't have to be bitcoin specifically; all cryptos are very similar, and I suspect many will be in use in the future, not just one as you've concluded. I don't care how similar bitcoin becomes to mainstream banks (nor was this ever its specified purpose to be averse to banks), so long as there's no benefit to tampering with it (everyone jumps ship to another crypto the moment the update to increase the bitcoin supply is released), then we have a product that has the potential to change the world for the better.
Even if these are fixed, its too late, people will realise the wealth disparity caused.
I hope by now I've explained exactly why this quote is irrelevant; there's nothing to fix (aside from popular opinion) and no cause to worry about a major wealth disparity. Bitcoin does not operate like fiat, although I'm sure government might try to force usage of one or the other. So long as nobody has to use bitcoin, you never have to worry about a wealthy bitcoin elite; there will be plenty of wealthy bitcoiners, no doubt, but none that'll rule the world without the help of a third party.
A new world cryptocurrency will be replace it, where the wealth disparity stays the same, where it is today... but with all the benefits that crypto has to offer so the world doesnt collapse?
I will refer you to your initial black & white fallacy at the top of the post: all cryptocurrencies are wordly and many new ones are being developed all the time. You're trying to superimpose fiat onto bitcoin, and it doesn't work. There will never be a one world crypto, because there will never be two people exactly alike, let alone billions!
Comments?
Thank you for removing yourself from the liberal echo-chamber for a moment; I invite you to study some Austrian economics here, to help balance your views:
https://mises.org/Literature
